I was raised the same way. What I recall, however, was that there was a strong regression back into Fundamentalism during the 1990s, even in mainline and "left-wing" denominations. Fortunately, the pendulum seems to be swinging back the other way, with e.g. Rob Bell's "Love Wins" popularizing some of the more progressive theologies.

The argument within the church is ancient, predating Darwin; in the 4th century, St. Augustine of Hippo wrote an entire treatise, De Genesi ad Litteram, arguing that Genesis should not be interpreted literally, and his commentary on the matter sounds like something from the 20th century, not 1600 years prior:

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

So... it's gone back and forth over time, even as the science behind it has changed.

The "average" engineer, yes.

But the GOOD and experienced engineers I know recognize and understand the value of sales, management, QA, Tech Support, IT, accounting and PR, and understand how all of these together make a healthy, functioning organization.

The same can be said for the "average" salesman vs. the GOOD salesman, the "average" accountant vs. the GOOD accountant, the "average" IT guy vs. the GOOD IT guy, the "average" PR person vs. the GOOD PR person, etc.

Lutz isn't suggesting you put any old engineer into these roles. He's saying to put the ones who understand the basics of business –which one needs no degree or formal training to learn – in charge. And Lutz would know, more than most.

When you use the phrase "fly-over states" without irony, that makes you as much as a dumbass as Palin.

Jerk.

Yeah, and even I picked up on that while watching the 90 minute video. But I also saw that the meat of what he was saying was true. Then I replaced soda with water and milk in my own diet, and lost 10 pounds within a few weeks. Added soda back in, and the 10 pounds came back.

Neat trick, eh?

I wouldn't call it "controlled." There are far, far too many variables involved.

And guess what sucrose is? It's a glucose molecule and a fructose molecule bonded together.

Well, let's be fair. It's quite possible that I am wrong, and that the individuals above -have- debunked it, and that the poster could have linked to better sources which demonstrate that it has been debunked. It's also possible that I misunderstood the posts in question. I remain open-minded, as I'm having to trust the explanations I've been given, and don't really have the knowledge of biochemistry (or chemistry in general) yet to properly dissect the conclusions.

That said, given my limited understanding of what the guy linked to, Lustig's main claims remain un-debunked: Fructose is broken down only by the liver, and produces chemicals that, in the absence of fiber and in the quantities Americans eat them, lead to health problems; moreover, simply reducing one's sugar intake by, say, replacing soda and fruit juice with milk, can single-handedly cure MOST* obesity; lastly, that Americans have greatly increased their sugar intake since the early 1980s, as most products now have added sugar to make them taste better and yet remain "low-fat."

(*Obviously some people have hormonal issues, e.g. PCOS sufferers, which make this more complicated, but most obese folks are not suffering from PCOS or other hormonal issues.)

After reading the link (such as it is) and some of the other similar links, I don't see where Aragon has disproven much of what Lustig has claimed. He has certainly shaded some doubt on his claims, called him out for overstating his case and addressed some of the outside claims, but he has nothing to counter the main claim Lustig makes (i.e., this is how fructose is processed by the body, these are the chemicals produced, and this is how the body deals with it).

The James Krieger article linked above is even worse; other than hand-waving about "alarmism" it is remarkably poor on facts.

Stating that Lustig has been "extensively debunked" appears, upon actually reading your links, to be at best a ludicrous exaggeration.

There are two problems here.

The first is that what Lustig is saying is complicated enough that it requires an hour-and-a-half long presentation to cover all of the bases.

The second is that it's long enough that casual readers aren't going to spend the time going through it. "tl;dr" and all that.

RTFA isn't your strong suit, is it?

Sugar is a (roughly) 50/50 mix of glucose and fructose, and it's the fructose that Lustig claims is toxic.

Is this really necessary? The entertainment industry follows different rules from every other industry, for one thing. More importantly, it produces nothing you can't live without, and very, very little that is particularly edifying.

Moreover, the number of Xbox 360s sold is dwarfed by the number of consumer electronics that are running Linux, from wireless routers to mobile phones to GPS units...

Linux doesn't have to beat proprietary software on the desktop any more, because the desktop has become largely irrelevant. "This thing you want to do only works on Windows/proprietary environment" has become almost anachronistic.

...if the IDC "study" takes into account the effect of the AT&T - T-Mobile merger. Because if that occurs and there isn't a deluge of customers from T-Mobile to Sprint as a result, then the iPhone would be available for ... well, basically everyone except for Sprint customers in the USA, and you'd have to think that could only help the iPhone's market share.

Serious question here. Do people assigned to these re-education camps actually come out thinking that oh, they had it all wrong, and they'll be on the right path once again? Because I have a hard time believing, after nearly 40 years of dealing with people, that this is the result. If anything, I'd believe they come out even more convinced than ever that whatever got them in trouble was right, but more cautious about expressing it.

I'm talking about what happens in real life, not what happens in Orwell's absurd fantasies.

Seriously. I'll worry about Mac's graphics problems about the same time Steam fixes this completely unreasonable and ridiculous requirement that it be installed on a case-insensitive filesystem. I converted my HDD to case-sensitive and everything else seems to work just fine with it... what the hell, man?

Yes, it is. If for nothing else, to see that there are folks in Hollywood for whom the pull of Scientology is ... nonexistent. ;)